SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Beykoz Akademi Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1

ERISTIC ARGUMENTATION IN STRATEGIC DECISION-MAKING: A THREAT TO THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF HEURISTICS

STRATEJİK KARAR VERMEDE ERİSTİK GEREKÇELENDİRME: SEZGİSEL KARAR VERMENİN ETKİN UYGULAMASINA BİR TEHDİT

Rasim Serdar KURDOĞLU
Nüfer Yasin ATEŞ
Pages
150–164
Publication Date
2021-06-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This study contributes to the micro-foundations of strategy literature by discussing the bases of eristic argumentation, its markers and its consequences for organizations.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Strategic decisions are often made in highly uncertain conditions by a coalition of actors which are driven by their self or subunit interests, thus have conflicting strategic agendas.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In these conditions, the use of heuristic decision making that exerts practical rationality is required to arrive at high quality strategic decisions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This study contributes to the micro-foundations of strategy literature by discussing the bases of eristic argumentation, its markers and its consequences for organizations.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Stratejik karar verme · Sezgisel gerekçelendirme · Eristik gerekçelendirme

Abstract

Strategic decisions are often made in highly uncertain conditions by a coalition of actors which are driven by their self or subunit interests, thus have conflicting strategic agendas. In these conditions, the use of heuristic decision making that exerts practical rationality is required to arrive at high quality strategic decisions. This research introduces ‘eristic argumentation’ as a major threat to the effective using of heuristics in strategic decision making. Eristic argumentation abuses reasoning to defeat the counter party at all costs. This study contributes to the micro-foundations of strategy literature by discussing the bases of eristic argumentation, its markers and its consequences for organizations.

Özet

Stratejik kararlar çoğunlukla yüksek belirsizlik içeren koşullarda, kurum içinde farklı birimleri temsil eden, dolayısıyla farklı bireysel çıkarları olan ve farklı stratejik gündemlere sahip koalisyonlar tarafından alınır. Bu koşullarda, pratik akıl yürütme içeren sezgisel yöntemlerin etkin olarak kullanılması kaliteli stratejik kararların oluşturulması için gereklidir. Bu araştırma, stratejik karar vermede sezgisel yöntemlerin etkin kullanılmasına tehdit oluşturan eristik gerekçelendirme kavramını sunan teorik bir çalışmadır. Eristik gerekçelendirme, muhakeme süreçlerini istismar ederek, karşı tarafı ne pahasına olursa olsun alt etmeyi amaçlar. Bu çalışma eristik gerekçelendirmenin temelini, işaretçilerini ve kurumlar açısından sonuçlarını tartışarak strateji literatürünün mikro temellerine katkıda bulunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KURDOĞLU, R. S., ATEŞ, N. Y. (2021). ERISTIC ARGUMENTATION IN STRATEGIC DECISION-MAKING: A THREAT TO THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF HEURISTICS. Beykoz Akademi Dergisi, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1, 150–164. https://ajindex.com/articles/220264

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Bies, R. J. (2005). Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct? In J Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp. 85–112).
  2. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bingham, C. B., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2011). Rational heuristics: The “simple rules” that strategists learn from process experience. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13), 1437–1464.
  3. Bobocel, D. R., & Zdaniuk, A. (2005). How can explanations be used to foster organizational justice? In Jerald Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp. 469–498).
  4. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Booth, W. C. (2004). The rhetoric of rhetoric: The quest for effective communication. Blackwell Publishing. Bozionelos, N. (2005). When the inferior candidate is offered the job: The selection interview as a political and power game. Human Relations, 58(12), 1605–1631.
  5. Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1993). Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 441-470.
  6. Collins, B. J., & Mossholder, K. W. (2017). Fairness means more to some than others: Interactional fairness, job embeddedness, and discretionary work behaviors. Journal of Management, 43(2), 293–318.
  7. Coughlan, R. (2005). Codes, values and justifications in the ethical decision-making process. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(1–2), 45–53.
  8. Cullen, L. K., Gerbasi, A., & Chrobot-Mason, D. (2018). Thriving in central network positions: The role of political skill. Journal of Management, 44(2), 682–706.
  9. Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making. The Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 33–54. den Nieuwenboer, N. A., Cunha, J. V. D., & Treviño, L. K. (2017). Middle managers and corruptive routine translation: The social production of deceptive performance. Organization Science, 28(5), 781–803.
  10. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bourgeois, L. J. (1988). Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 737–770.
  11. Elbanna, S. (2006). Strategic decision-making: Process perspectives. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(1), 1–20.
  12. Felin, T., Foss, N. J., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015). The Microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 575–632.
  13. Ferrin, D. L., Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2007). Silence speaks volumes: the effectiveness of reticence in